So, I was directed to add the response the Lord gave me as a page. This way, you will have an answer when this argument is leveled against you in the future. I have to offer a sincere thanks. It has been awhile since somebody has made me think quite this much. That is a hard thing to do these days, as the Lord has given me an understanding and defense for nearly every position that gets offered on the rapture. That was the case with your take on the word escape. At first reading, it seemed that your defense was a hard position to counter. However, the Lord always gives me guidance in this area, and today would turn out to be no different.
As with any study of words, phrases and statements, full context and use of the word in question is required to understand the meaning behind something that we are reading. Here are the online sources that I have reviewed: Furthermore, when viewed with the examples of scripture I have provided, it will become clear that it is indeed used in a passive tense, as opposed to active.
To escape by walking through an open door is the same as walking through a door that you must open first. The escape is not the opening of the door. It is the actual walking through the door. In the case of the rapture, worthiness is not a determination of whether or not you can walk through the door. Remember, heaven is a locked door in which Christ alone can open. If He accounts you worthy, then He opens the door! Once that door is open, then there is no choice — you WILL walk through the door. Whether in death or rapture it makes no difference.
When you finish reading this commentary, I think you will see that the challenge to find ekpheugo used in the passive voice was not only met — but surpassed. In fact, passive is the only tense that can be ascribed to the word. Here is a critical piece of the puzzle. If ekpheugo had been used just once in the Bible — in Luke In using each form of escape at least three times, it sets the definition and meaning of each form and leaves no wiggle room to alter what the Bible is telling us. When taken with the other examples of scripture given, we see that escape is not something which is actively accomplished by the persons involved.
Stated differently, there is nothing indicated that can be done to effect and escape. You cannot make the escape happen — you can only partake of something outside of your abilities.
For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven: Each of these four scriptures use the exact same verb — ekpheugo. Not only that, but the supporting context of each of the above scriptures provides yet another piece of the puzzle. Hebrews 12 is particularly interesting in light of the current conversation.
It just so happens that there is a form of escape that means this very thing. For the word in Acts And so it came to pass, that they escaped all safe to land. In both verses, we can see that escape is by the individual effort of those that are seeking escape. However, this is not the verb that was used in Luke Diasozo is the word that would have confirmed that there is no pre-tribulation rapture. We know that this is also not the intended message of Luke If we were to prepare to endure the tribulation to escape , this would be used in the following context:.
No, that was not an actual scripture — just an example of what such a scripture might say. They illustrated the differences in the concepts for us in doing so. They left little room for misunderstanding on what they were trying to convey. I will offer one more piece to this puzzle tonight. For the sake of a thorough inquiry, I took the liberty going back to the original Greek for the entire reading of Luke This is a bombshell!
This alone settles the argument on the issue. In the original Greek, with no rearranging of the words, we see what was actually written by Luke, and what he actually wanted to say. You did so under the premise that both are active verbs, and therefore indicate that escape is an action solely in the hands of the person involved. As I have shown already, your assertion on ekpheugo is incorrect. However, what about the word flee? Does it in anyway support your claims.
The most common use is the word pheugo , which indicates fleeing of your own accord, or by your own hands. How do we know this, besides the definition given above? Well, pheugo is used at 15 different times in the New Testament — with each use indicating flight under power and efforts on our own hands: However, ekpheugo is used to denote flee in several scriptures worth noting:. Ask yourself what these three scriptures have in common. Here is a hint — it is the opposite of the 15 scriptures listed above that fit what you asserted as a defense. In the 15 listed scriptures above, it is clear that to flee is something that is done by our own hands and efforts — much the same as you assert must come in the tribulation, and what you assert Luke So, the three scriptures above?
Their common link is simple to understand. Just as ekpheugo is passive in its description in Luke In all three, we see that fleeing or flight is based on the efforts of another to open the door or clear the way. We simply have to avail ourselves of the efforts made by another. In the case of Luke We can add one more piece to the puzzle.
I highlighted the two differences in the definition to drive home the point. One cannot truly be achieved by us in the context of Luke chapter The other is based solely on our efforts, and was NOT chosen as the wording for Luke This is normally carried over into the doctrine of translation and resurrection. Most pretribulationists as well as most posttribulationists consider the translation and ressurrection of the saints on this basis. By contrast, the partial rapture teaching transfers both resurrection and translation from a work of grace to a work of reward for faithfulness.
In so contending, they wrest principal Scriptures and misapply others. Opposition to the partial rapture point of view springs not only from particular texts but from the broad doctrine of the nature of salvation itself. It becomes therefore more than an argument about prophecy. It has its roots deep in the general theological perspective of the respective parties. The opposition to the partial rapture view is also related to ecclesiology or the doctrine of the church. Most evangelicals distinguish the true church from the merely professing element. It is granted that outward conformity and organizational membership does not guarantee any blessing in the prophetic program.
Pretribulationists as well as posttribulationists distinguish divine dealing with those genuinely saved and those who only profess salvation. Partial rapturists, however, are quite different in point of view from that commonly held. For them there are two classes of genuinely saved people—those worthy of translation, and those not worthy.
They therefore divide the body of Christ into two groups on a works principle. By contrast, the Scriptures teach that the body of Christ, composed of all true believers, is a unit and is given promises as such. It is inconceivable if the church is formed by grace that it should be divided by works.
That is awesome to know that we will have squatting rights The sun-clad woman represents the church of all dispensations in age-long conflict with Satan. Yes, the Christians who are in the First-Fruit Rapture will have tasks allotted them. In the case of Luke Sadly for you — the answer is no. How We Escape the Great Tribulation: The dragon's seven heads, which represent the seven successive world empires, are all crowned.
The passages in Scripture [All quotations of Scripture, unless otherwise indicated, are from the American Standard Version Those for whom Christ is coming according to John Those translated and those resurrected at the last trump of 1 Corinthians According to 1 Thessalonians 4: Partial rapturists, however, contend for their point of view using various Scripture portions which are interpreted as sustaining their doctrine.
These must be examined before the full character of their teaching becomes apparent. Most of the Scriptural basis for the partial rapture theory is found by its adherents in exhortations to watch or look for the coming of the Lord coupled with the teaching that some who fail to watch will not be ready when He comes. Passages commonly used include Matthew In citing these passages, little distinction is observed between references to Israel and references to the church, and passages referring to the second coming of Christ to establish the millennial kingdom are freely applied to the rapture or translation.
In fact, many of the points of view of the partial rapture adherents are also held by posttribulationists. A study of these passages as interpreted by the partial rapturists will show the confusion of interpretation. The Matthew passage is essentially an exhortation to watch. The one not watching is described as one to be cut asunder and given the portion of hypocrites v. This passage is properly interpreted as belonging to the second coming rather than to the church, though expositors in general are not always of one mind on this.
The people in view are the Israelite nation. Of these, some are watching and are faithful, taking care of the household of God. It is obvious that something more than mere carelessness is in view. The faithfulness of those watching is evidence of true faith in Christ, whereas the unfaithfulness of those who are drunken is indicative of failure to believe to the saving of the soul.
While works are in view, they are indicative of vital faith or its lack. In any case, there is nothing whatever said about the rapture or translation of the faithful. It is doubtful if there is any specific reference at all to the rapture or translation in the entire context of Matthew 24 — Partial rapturists usually seize upon Matthew He offers confirmation in that paralambano is used in John A careful study of the usage here, however, however, does not sustain this exegesis.
The context is Jewish, and does not refer to the church at all. The discussion is dealing with the end of the age, i. The terminus ad quem is the second coming, not the translation of the church. The Greek word paralambano is not specifically one describing a friendly relation. It is also used in John The act of taking away in Matthew In both the one taken away is taken in judgment. This is precisely what is done at the second coming of Christ when those who remain enter the blessing of the millennium, and those taken away suffer judgment. The evidence, then, for a partial rapture in this passage is completely dissolved upon examination of the evidence.
The parallel passage in Mark This passage is cited by Lang as one of the conclusive proofs for the partial rapture theory. Lang summarizes his argument in these words: They will stand before Him there. All pretribulationists will agree that escape from the coming time of trial is provided for believers in Christ.
All also agree that those who believe in Christ during the tribulation itself, while not kept out of the period, may have deliverance from it at the coming of the Lord to establish His kingdom. The point of dispute lies entirely in the conclusion that some true believers will be left to go through the tribulation while others are translated before it comes to pass.
While the exegesis of this passage is admittedly difficult, a careful study of the context provides a clue for its interpretation. The context has to do with signs preceding the second coming, obviously addressed to people who will be living on earth at that time. However, the frequent interchange of the second and third persons in the entire passage does not provide much basis for this distinction cf.
The larger context deals with those living in the days of the signs and the exhortations largely concern them cf. The safest course would be to identify verse 36 as directed to those in the tribulation who anticipate the coming of the Lord to establish His kingdom. They certainly will pray, for only by divine help will they survive the period. Note should be taken that this passage does not speak of deliverance from the period or the hour of trial cf. It should be observed that here, as in other passages often used by the partial rapturists, the rapture is not specifically mentioned, indeed is not indicated at all.
Lang is inserting in the text what it does not say when he states that to stand before the Son of Man must necessarily mean in heaven. All men will stand before Christ on earth at the second coming cf. To press the idea of escaping judgment as indicated in this passage to prove a partial rapture requires invention of the principal components of the doctrine.
It is best to conclude that this passage does not teach a partial rapture because it does not refer to the rapture at all. The parable of the ten virgins is variously interpreted by pretribulationists, some taking it as referring to the tribulation saints 8 and others to the church. The answer given to the partial rapturists depends upon the interpretation of the passage as a whole. If Chafer is correct that the passage deals with the end of the interadvent age, the tribulation, rather than the church, then the passage has no relation to the partial rapture doctrine.
The church is ordinarily the bride, and in a figure of a wedding feast it would be incongruous to conceive of the church as represented by maidens attending the feast. The passage itself uses none of the characteristic terms relating to the church, such as bride , body , or the expression in Christ. There is no reference whatever to translation or resurrection. The bridegroom comes to the place where the virgins are waiting in an earthly scene and remains in that earthly scene as far as the figure is concerned. These and many other observations point to excluding this passage from consideration.
However, even if the virgins represent the church in the present age, where is the proof that this is the true church, the company of those who are saved? As commonly interpreted by such writers as H. Ironside, 10 the virgins represent the professing church. True believers are identified as having oil in their lamps, typical of the Holy Spirit. Mere professors have the appearance but no oil, that is, are not genuinely regenerated and indwelt by the Spirit. This passage would serve to refute the partial rapturists instead of sustaining their viewpoint.
Only by the power and presence of the Holy Spirit can one be qualified for entrance into the wedding feast, but all the wise virgins enter the feast. The context indicates that the passage deals with the question of the state of those raised from the dead. Those who are counted worthy of the resurrection of the righteous at the beginning of the millennial age indicated in the passage are evidently the saved who have died and are at that time raised from the dead.
Not only is the idea of partial rapture foreign to the passage, but the passage does not deal with the subject of rapture at all.
If the rapture takes place before the tribulation, this scene is related to the posttribulational resurrection. According to Daniel There is no partial rapture here nor is the resurrection of the righteous divided on the principle of being worthy. This passage can therefore be excluded from the argument entirely. It is the contention of partial rapturists that Paul had in mind the necessity of faithfulness in the hope of meriting resurrection at the time of the first resurrection, i.
Govett translates Philippians 3: His hope was that he might attain to it in the sense of being still alive when the event took place, which would mean that he would be translated rather than resurrected. Paul had no doubt that he would be included in the event. The resurrection of which Paul speaks is not of reward as Govett argues.